Discussion:
IS SPACETIME DOOMED ?
(too old to reply)
Pentcho Valev
2014-10-28 08:23:28 UTC
Permalink
Spacetime, the breathtaking consequence of Einstein's 1905 two postulates, is wrong and will have to be abandoned (at least Einsteinians say so):

http://edge.org/responses/what-scientific-idea-is-ready-for-retirement
WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... (...) The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..."


Nima Arkani-Hamed, 14:31 : "We strongly believe that spacetime doesn't really exist. (...) The slogan is that spacetime is doomed and something has to replace it."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727721.200-rethinking-einstein-the-end-of-spacetime.html
NEW SCIENTIST: "Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time. IT WAS a speech that changed the way we think of space and time. The year was 1908, and the German mathematician Hermann Minkowski had been trying to make sense of Albert Einstein's hot new idea - what we now know as special relativity - describing how things shrink as they move faster and time becomes distorted. "Henceforth space by itself and time by itself are doomed to fade into the mere shadows," Minkowski proclaimed, "and only a union of the two will preserve an independent reality." And so space-time - the malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of stars, planets and matter - was born. It is a concept that has served us well, but if physicist Petr Horava is right, it may be no more than a mirage. (...) For decades now, physicists have been stymied in their efforts to reconcile Einstein's general theory of relativity, which describes gravity, and quantum mechanics, which describes particles and forces (except gravity) on the smallest scales. The stumbling block lies with their conflicting views of space and time. As seen by quantum theory, space and time are a static backdrop against which particles move. In Einstein's theories, by contrast, not only are space and time inextricably linked, but the resulting space-time is moulded by the bodies within it. (...) Something has to give in this tussle between general relativity and quantum mechanics, and the smart money says that it's relativity that will be the loser."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/jun/10/time-reborn-farewell-reality-review
"And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin."

http://www.amazon.com/Time-Reborn-Crisis-Physics-Universe/dp/0547511728
"Was Einstein wrong? At least in his understanding of time, Smolin argues, the great theorist of relativity was dead wrong. What is worse, by firmly enshrining his error in scientific orthodoxy, Einstein trapped his successors in insoluble dilemmas..."

Yet, while Einsteinians apparently want to reject spacetime, the wrong consequence of Einstein's 1905 two postulates, they still strongly believe that the postulates themselves are true:

http://www.independent.com/news/2013/apr/17/time-reborn/
QUESTION: Setting aside any other debates about relativity theory for the moment, why would the speed of light be absolute? No other speeds are absolute, that is, all other speeds do indeed change in relation to the speed of the observer, so it's always seemed a rather strange notion to me.
LEE SMOLIN: Special relativity works extremely well and the postulate of the invariance or universality of the speed of light is extremely well-tested. It might be wrong in the end but it is an extremely good approximation to reality.
QUESTION: So let me pick a bit more on Einstein and ask you this: You write (p. 56) that Einstein showed that simultaneity is relative. But the conclusion of the relativity of simultaneity flows necessarily from Einstein's postulates (that the speed of light is absolute and that the laws of nature are relative). So he didn't really show that simultaneity was relative - he assumed it. What do I have wrong here?
LEE SMOLIN: The relativity of simultaneity is a consequence of the two postulates that Einstein proposed and so it is deduced from the postulates. The postulates and their consequences are then checked experimentally and, so far, they hold remarkably well.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/expe-text.html
Nima Arkani-Hamed: "When first encountering relativity, what really struck me about it more than anything else was actually how incredibly simple the underlying ideas were. The big point wasn't hidden in some minutiae of some deep mathematics, or these stunning, very striking assumptions - that the speed of light is constant and that physics looks the same in all frames of reference - and from these two seemingly innocuous assumptions come this incredibly different worldview than the standard Newtonian picture of the world."

Conclusion: Spacetime is not and cannot be doomed in Einstein's schizophrenic world. Einsteinians are not going to reject it - making more money is the only goal of the current campaign:

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/outreach/general-public/public-lecture-series
QUANTUM MECHANICS AND SPACETIME IN THE 21ST CENTURY
NIMA ARKANI-HAMED, INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED STUDY
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2014 AT 7:00PM
PERIMETER INSTITUTE - 31 CAROLINE ST. N., WATERLOO
Tickets for this event are SOLD OUT.

Pentcho Valev
James Winters
2014-10-28 21:03:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pentcho Valev
Spacetime, the breathtaking consequence of Einstein's 1905 two
postulates,
http://edge.org/responses/what-scientific-idea-is-ready-for-retirement
"Spacetime.
Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage
of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime...
(...) The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental
concept is profound..."
http://youtu.be/pup3s86oJXU
Nima Arkani-Hamed, 14:31 : "We strongly believe that spacetime doesn't
really exist. (...) The slogan is that spacetime is doomed and
something has to replace it."
Done from the beginning of time till today, its name is Ether, still valid
and indispensable.

The problem with spacetime is that it is as is been said so many times
before. They linked Gravity to SR to make Relativity funnier. But Gravity
is total different and not related to the beautiful theory of Relativity
in any way. In fact you may rather call the space and time in SR for space
time, which MAY NOT BE CURVED. Bending the spacetime one more time, as
they do in GR is just stupid and not related.

THe only clean bending of spacetime is done due to Length Contraction and
Time Dilation in SR. Adding gravity to it is just stupid.
JanPB
2014-10-28 21:29:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Winters
Post by Pentcho Valev
Spacetime, the breathtaking consequence of Einstein's 1905 two
postulates,
http://edge.org/responses/what-scientific-idea-is-ready-for-retirement
"Spacetime.
Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage
of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime...
(...) The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental
concept is profound..."
http://youtu.be/pup3s86oJXU
Nima Arkani-Hamed, 14:31 : "We strongly believe that spacetime doesn't
really exist. (...) The slogan is that spacetime is doomed and
something has to replace it."
Done from the beginning of time till today, its name is Ether, still valid
and indispensable.
Not the 19th century aether. That one is dead. My guess is space (and perhaps
even time as well) will have to be reified as there seems to be no other way
out of the QM vs. GR dilemma. The resulting "substantial space" will be
undoubtedly called "aether" by those who like the concept :-)
Post by James Winters
The problem with spacetime is that it is as is been said so many times
before. They linked Gravity to SR to make Relativity funnier. But Gravity
is total different and not related to the beautiful theory of Relativity
in any way. In fact you may rather call the space and time in SR for space
time, which MAY NOT BE CURVED. Bending the spacetime one more time, as
they do in GR is just stupid and not related.
Not even wrong.
Post by James Winters
THe only clean bending of spacetime is done due to Length Contraction and
Time Dilation in SR. Adding gravity to it is just stupid.
Not even wrong.

--
Jan
Wade Collado
2014-10-28 22:01:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by JanPB
Post by James Winters
Done from the beginning of time till today, its name is Ether, still
valid and indispensable.
Not the 19th century aether. That one is dead. My guess is space (and
perhaps even time as well) will have to be reified as there seems to be
no other way out of the QM vs. GR dilemma. The resulting "substantial
space" will be undoubtedly called "aether" by those who like the concept
Post by James Winters
The problem with spacetime is that it is as is been said so many times
before. They linked Gravity to SR to make Relativity funnier. But
Gravity is total different and not related to the beautiful theory of
Relativity in any way. In fact you may rather call the space and time
in SR for space time, which MAY NOT BE CURVED. Bending the spacetime
one more time, as they do in GR is just stupid and not related.
Not even wrong.
Post by James Winters
THe only clean bending of spacetime is done due to Length Contraction
and Time Dilation in SR. Adding gravity to it is just stupid.
Not even wrong.
Of course is not wrong, valid observation. Only type when you see
something wrong. Thank Q.
JanPB
2014-10-28 23:19:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wade Collado
Post by JanPB
Post by James Winters
Done from the beginning of time till today, its name is Ether, still
valid and indispensable.
Not the 19th century aether. That one is dead. My guess is space (and
perhaps even time as well) will have to be reified as there seems to be
no other way out of the QM vs. GR dilemma. The resulting "substantial
space" will be undoubtedly called "aether" by those who like the concept
Post by James Winters
The problem with spacetime is that it is as is been said so many times
before. They linked Gravity to SR to make Relativity funnier. But
Gravity is total different and not related to the beautiful theory of
Relativity in any way. In fact you may rather call the space and time
in SR for space time, which MAY NOT BE CURVED. Bending the spacetime
one more time, as they do in GR is just stupid and not related.
Not even wrong.
Post by James Winters
THe only clean bending of spacetime is done due to Length Contraction
and Time Dilation in SR. Adding gravity to it is just stupid.
Not even wrong.
Of course is not wrong, valid observation. Only type when you see
something wrong. Thank Q.
You've missed the pun: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

--
Jan
Pentcho Valev
2014-10-31 10:50:37 UTC
Permalink

The Doom of Space Time by Nima Arkani-Hamed: "Back then it was determinism that had to be lost. Today it is spacetime that has to be lost, and we have to figure out how to make do without spacetime. (...) By insisting on describing the physics in the way that makes spacetime front and center, we hide things, we obscure things, we make things that are simple complicated... (...) The structure of standard physics are clues to a new way of thinking about physics without spacetime."

Spacetime (as devised by Einstein and Minkowski) is a consequence of Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, so if the consequence is unacceptable, the postulate must be false. Nima Arkani-Hamed is still exercising himself in crimestop but sooner or later he will have to start thinking about this simple postulate-consequence relation:

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79n/chapter2.9.html
"Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

Pentcho Valev
h***@yahoo.com
2014-10-31 13:18:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pentcho Valev
Spacetime (as devised by Einstein and Minkowski) is a consequence of
Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate,
A bit simplistic. Spacetime is an interpretation of the LT, and the LT
is a consequence of P2.
Post by Pentcho Valev
so if the consequence is unacceptable, the postulate must be false.
Completely wrong-headed nonsense. Who decides what is "unacceptable"?
Pentcho? From his previous egregious errors he must disqualify himself.

No, the decision must be made by EXPERIMENT, not by what causes heartburn
in a puny, insignificant human. By that criterion, P2 has been verified
many, many, many times and never refuted. So Pentcho needs to find some
other way to reduce his stomach acid :-)

Gary
Pentcho Valev
2014-10-28 22:08:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by JanPB
My guess is space (and perhaps
even time as well) will have to be reified as there seems to be no other way
out of the QM vs. GR dilemma.
Is that the same Einsteinian zombie? What is going on?

Pentcho Valev
JanPB
2014-10-28 23:17:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pentcho Valev
Post by JanPB
My guess is space (and perhaps
even time as well) will have to be reified as there seems to be no other way
out of the QM vs. GR dilemma.
Is that the same Einsteinian zombie? What is going on?
Pentcho Valev
I've been saying this around here since 1997 or so. I'm not sure if this
is correct, it's just a hunch. All "reasonable" methods of marrying QM
with GR have failed spectacularly. The two are also diametrically opposed
from the start: QM tries "gravitons" to "transmit the force of gravity"
while GR says "there is no such thing as force of gravity, so nothing
to transmit".

--
Jan
h***@yahoo.com
2014-10-28 23:34:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by JanPB
My guess is space (and perhaps even time as well) will have to be reified
as there seems to be no other way out of the QM vs. GR dilemma.
I've been saying this around here since 1997 or so. I'm not sure if this
is correct, it's just a hunch. All "reasonable" methods of marrying QM
with GR have failed spectacularly. The two are also diametrically opposed
from the start: QM tries "gravitons" to "transmit the force of gravity"
while GR says "there is no such thing as force of gravity, so nothing
to transmit".
Jan
Hi Jan,

Isn't there some speculation that the virtual particle "sea" may be the new
aether (and, perhaps, spacetime, too)?

Gary
kefischer
2014-10-28 23:51:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@yahoo.com
Post by JanPB
My guess is space (and perhaps even time as well) will have to be reified
as there seems to be no other way out of the QM vs. GR dilemma.
I've been saying this around here since 1997 or so. I'm not sure if this
is correct, it's just a hunch. All "reasonable" methods of marrying QM
with GR have failed spectacularly. The two are also diametrically opposed
from the start: QM tries "gravitons" to "transmit the force of gravity"
while GR says "there is no such thing as force of gravity, so nothing
to transmit".
Jan
Hi Jan,
Isn't there some speculation that the virtual particle "sea" may be the new
aether (and, perhaps, spacetime, too)?
Gary
Go to the aether newsgroup, aethernut. :-[)
h***@yahoo.com
2014-10-29 00:09:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by kefischer
Post by h***@yahoo.com
Post by JanPB
I've been saying this around here since 1997 or so. I'm not sure if this
is correct, it's just a hunch. All "reasonable" methods of marrying QM
with GR have failed spectacularly. The two are also diametrically opposed
from the start: QM tries "gravitons" to "transmit the force of gravity"
while GR says "there is no such thing as force of gravity, so nothing
to transmit".
Jan
Hi Jan,
Isn't there some speculation that the virtual particle "sea" may be the new
aether (and, perhaps, spacetime, too)?
Gary
Go to the aether newsgroup, aethernut. :-[)
So your telling Jan, one of the smartest guys on this group, to leave? You
are just a yammering, bitter old man.

Gary
Reginald Schreiner
2014-10-29 00:23:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@yahoo.com
Post by kefischer
Go to the aether newsgroup, aethernut. :-[)
So your telling Jan, one of the smartest guys on this group, to leave?
Is his Jan telling? This sentence does not even computes.
Lord Androcles
2014-10-29 00:37:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@yahoo.com
Post by kefischer
Go to the aether newsgroup, aethernut. :-[)
So your telling Jan, one of the smartest guys on this group, to leave?
Is his Jan telling? This sentence does not even computes.
========================================================


Illiterate shitlong doesn't know "your" from "you're", otherwise the
sentence is grammatically and syntactically correct.
YOUR English is abysmal and your nymshifting makes you a total cunt.

-- The Reverend Lord Androcles.
REWARD: ounce of gold (worth US$1200)
I am offering 1 oz. for the head or heads of the
murderer(s) of James Foley, Steven Sotloff, David
Haines and Alan Henning, mounted on London Bridge
as we would have done in medieval times.
Add your own contribution and spread the word.
It's eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, head for a head,
barbarism for barbarism. Go get 'em, Obama, and
earn your Nobel peace prize.
Reginald Schreiner
2014-10-29 00:49:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Reginald Schreiner
Post by h***@yahoo.com
So your telling Jan, one of the smartest guys on this group, to leave?
Is his Jan telling? This sentence does not even computes.
========================================================
Illiterate shitlong doesn't know "your" from "you're", otherwise the
I agree entirely.
Post by Reginald Schreiner
sentence is grammatically and syntactically correct.
No is not, he tells "one of the smartest guys" :) lol. If "one" then
"guys" is totally hilarious. Also, "on this group" makes no sense
whatsoever, you are an illiterate idiot as well. Should be "in this
group". Got it, fool?
Post by Reginald Schreiner
YOUR English is abysmal and your nymshifting makes you a total cunt.
Aby what?? Abysmal, as in very deep, in English. You must be just another
almost an electronic engineer professionally. "Nymshifting" is not even an
word in my vocabulary. Plink!
Lord Androcles
2014-10-29 02:08:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Reginald Schreiner
Post by h***@yahoo.com
So your telling Jan, one of the smartest guys on this group, to leave?
Is his Jan telling? This sentence does not even computes.
========================================================
Illiterate shitlong doesn't know "your" from "you're", otherwise the
I agree entirely.
Post by Reginald Schreiner
sentence is grammatically and syntactically correct.
No is not,

=========================================
Yes it is, you fucking imbecile. It may not be logically correct as Jan
isn't smart, but it is grammatically and syntactically correct apart from
"your".
Change your name to reply, you stupid fuckwit.
*plonk*


-- The Reverend Lord Androcles.
REWARD: ounce of gold (worth US$1200)
I am offering 1 oz. for the head or heads of the
murderer(s) of James Foley, Steven Sotloff, David
Haines and Alan Henning, mounted on London Bridge
as we would have done in medieval times.
Add your own contribution and spread the word.
It's eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, head for a head,
barbarism for barbarism. Go get 'em, Obama, and
earn your Nobel peace prize.
p***@gmail.com
2014-10-29 02:28:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Reginald Schreiner
Post by Reginald Schreiner
Post by h***@yahoo.com
So your telling Jan, one of the smartest guys on this group, to leave?
Is his Jan telling? This sentence does not even computes.
========================================================
Illiterate shitlong doesn't know "your" from "you're", otherwise the
I agree entirely.
Post by Reginald Schreiner
sentence is grammatically and syntactically correct.
No is not,
=========================================
Yes it is, you fucking imbecile. It may not be logically correct as Jan
isn't smart, but it is grammatically and syntactically correct apart from
"your".
Change your name to reply, you stupid fuckwit.
*plonk*
You can't *plonk* him, he *plinked* you first, you just snipped it...

:>)
kefischer
2014-10-29 01:11:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@yahoo.com
Post by kefischer
Post by h***@yahoo.com
Post by JanPB
I've been saying this around here since 1997 or so. I'm not sure if this
is correct, it's just a hunch. All "reasonable" methods of marrying QM
with GR have failed spectacularly. The two are also diametrically opposed
from the start: QM tries "gravitons" to "transmit the force of gravity"
while GR says "there is no such thing as force of gravity, so nothing
to transmit".
Jan
Hi Jan,
Isn't there some speculation that the virtual particle "sea" may be the new
aether (and, perhaps, spacetime, too)?
Gary
Go to the aether newsgroup, aethernut. :-[)
So your telling Jan, one of the smartest guys on this group, to leave? You
are just a yammering, bitter old man.
Gary
I responded to you, aethernut, can't you
decipher the attribute marks?
h***@yahoo.com
2014-10-29 02:08:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@yahoo.com
So your telling Jan, one of the smartest guys on this group, to leave? You
are just a yammering, bitter old man.
Gary
I responded to you, aethernut, can't you decipher the attribute marks?
Can't you understand I was having a discussion with Jan when you horned in
with your abusive crankiness? Don't you realize Jan believes in some kind
of aether, too? You're losing it, old man.

And don't you realize space is NOT empty, that vacuum is NOT nothingness?
You are becoming an obnoxious troll. Not as bad as the 'nym-shifting troll
who is pretending to be "Reginald Schreiner" but keep working at it and you
might make it.

Gary
kefischer
2014-10-29 02:38:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@yahoo.com
Post by h***@yahoo.com
So your telling Jan, one of the smartest guys on this group, to leave? You
are just a yammering, bitter old man.
Gary
I responded to you, aethernut, can't you decipher the attribute marks?
Can't you understand I was having a discussion with Jan when you horned in
with your abusive crankiness? Don't you realize Jan believes in some kind
of aether, too? You're losing it, old man.
No, I am not aware of anybody having more
than one brain cell believing in any kind of aether. :-[)
Post by h***@yahoo.com
And don't you realize space is NOT empty,
Of course it isn't "empty", there are stars,
planets, moons, light, magnetism, and whatever,
but no aether or medium that is space itself.
Post by h***@yahoo.com
that vacuum is NOT nothingness?
Without the things I mentioned above,
the vacuum of space sure as hell is nothingness,
why would you think an oil diffusion pump
pumps out everything but the aether?
Post by h***@yahoo.com
You are becoming an obnoxious troll.
Actually you are the troll, pretending
everything is known and that you know
it all.
Post by h***@yahoo.com
Not as bad as the 'nym-shifting troll
who is pretending to be "Reginald Schreiner" but keep working at it and you
might make it.
Gary
Ok, I will. :-[)
h***@yahoo.com
2014-10-29 02:56:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@yahoo.com
Can't you understand I was having a discussion with Jan when you horned in
with your abusive crankiness? Don't you realize Jan believes in some kind
of aether, too? You're losing it, old man.
No, I am not aware of anybody having more than one brain cell believing in
any kind of aether. :-[)
So you have selective forgetfulness. Maybe that's caused by having too few
brain cells :-)
Post by h***@yahoo.com
And don't you realize space is NOT empty,
Of course it isn't "empty", there are stars, planets, moons, light,
magnetism, and whatever, but no aether or medium that is space itself.
Intentional misunderstanding is a hallmark of a troll.
Post by h***@yahoo.com
that vacuum is NOT nothingness?
Without the things I mentioned above, the vacuum of space sure as hell is
nothingness, why would you think an oil diffusion pump pumps out everything
but the aether?
It doesn't pump out virtual particles :-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_polarization
Post by h***@yahoo.com
You are becoming an obnoxious troll.
Actually you are the troll, pretending everything is known and that you
know it all.
You are distorting my actions (another hallmark of a troll). I merely point
out experimental evidence that refutes your speculations. If you were
rational, YOU would have considered these things yourself. It's a sad
commentary that you have to have your nose rubbed in reality.
Post by h***@yahoo.com
Not as bad as the 'nym-shifting troll who is pretending to be "Reginald
Schreiner" but keep working at it and you might make it.
Gary
Ok, I will. :-[)
So, let it be noted that Fischer WANTS to be a troll.

Gary
JanPB
2014-10-29 05:39:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by kefischer
Post by h***@yahoo.com
Post by h***@yahoo.com
So your telling Jan, one of the smartest guys on this group, to leave? You
are just a yammering, bitter old man.
Gary
I responded to you, aethernut, can't you decipher the attribute marks?
Can't you understand I was having a discussion with Jan when you horned in
with your abusive crankiness? Don't you realize Jan believes in some kind
of aether, too? You're losing it, old man.
No, I am not aware of anybody having more
than one brain cell believing in any kind of aether. :-[)
What I've been saying for a while is that it's probably time for space [sic]
to become more of an actor in physics than it is now. Many physical concepts
underwent this kind of transformation, energy being the most obvious example.
I suspect the current huge disparity between QM and GR is rooted there. In this
sense such model of space could be called "aether" but it would be nothing like
that 19th century "unobtanium"-type substance.

--
Jan
g***@iinet.net.au
2014-10-29 06:07:40 UTC
Permalink
ha -


my second year physics is coming back to me.

SR is interesting.

Gravity does not correspond to a link in the model. In fact it is stupid? (Makes sense).


Space time is good.


The concept of an Ether is fine.

Except it sounds a bit "wafty". Or ancient even. Like when people first discovered "static electricity on a comb".


Further work on this , needs to be done : )

lol
kefischer
2014-10-29 08:22:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by JanPB
Post by kefischer
Post by h***@yahoo.com
Post by h***@yahoo.com
So your telling Jan, one of the smartest guys on this group, to leave? You
are just a yammering, bitter old man.
Gary
I responded to you, aethernut, can't you decipher the attribute marks?
Can't you understand I was having a discussion with Jan when you horned in
with your abusive crankiness? Don't you realize Jan believes in some kind
of aether, too? You're losing it, old man.
No, I am not aware of anybody having more
than one brain cell believing in any kind of aether. :-[)
What I've been saying for a while is that it's probably time for space [sic]
to become more of an actor in physics than it is now. Many physical concepts
underwent this kind of transformation, energy being the most obvious example.
I suspect the current huge disparity between QM and GR is rooted there. In this
sense such model of space could be called "aether" but it would be nothing like
that 19th century "unobtanium"-type substance.
I believe in having an open mind and that anything
is possible, but I doubt if any kind of active space could
have anything to do with gravity.

I would like to know what you mean about the
energy transformation.
g***@iinet.net.au
2014-10-29 09:06:25 UTC
Permalink
current huge dispartiy between

quantum mechanics and general relativity...................
Darryl Wiseman Krauthaker
2014-10-29 18:04:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by JanPB
Post by kefischer
No, I am not aware of anybody having more
than one brain cell believing in any kind of aether. :-[)
What I've been saying for a while is that it's probably time for space
[sic] to become more of an actor in physics than it is now. Many
physical concepts underwent this kind of transformation, energy being
the most obvious example. I suspect the current huge disparity between
QM and GR is rooted there. In this sense such model of space could be
called "aether" but it would be nothing like that 19th century
"unobtanium"-type substance.
You both are wrong. The existence of Ether is self-evident (unlike
Relativity) and not something up to debate. The Ether, in a simplified ad
absurdium version, is the skeleton the Universe and all Measurable sits
IN. What you have is Math (the given Laws) and Eather. Having these two
things, matter pops inside as a consequence derived from the above two,
Logic and Ether.
JanPB
2014-10-29 20:53:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Darryl Wiseman Krauthaker
Post by JanPB
Post by kefischer
No, I am not aware of anybody having more
than one brain cell believing in any kind of aether. :-[)
What I've been saying for a while is that it's probably time for space
[sic] to become more of an actor in physics than it is now. Many
physical concepts underwent this kind of transformation, energy being
the most obvious example. I suspect the current huge disparity between
QM and GR is rooted there. In this sense such model of space could be
called "aether" but it would be nothing like that 19th century
"unobtanium"-type substance.
You both are wrong. The existence of Ether is self-evident (unlike
Relativity) and not something up to debate. The Ether, in a simplified ad
absurdium version, is the skeleton the Universe and all Measurable sits
IN. What you have is Math (the given Laws) and Eather. Having these two
things, matter pops inside as a consequence derived from the above two,
Logic and Ether.
This is just talk. Which reminds me: I am the Queen of England.

--
Jan
John Heath
2014-10-30 02:18:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by kefischer
Of course it isn't "empty", there are stars,
planets, moons, light, magnetism, and whatever,
but no aether or medium that is space itself.
Post by kefischer
Post by h***@yahoo.com
that vacuum is NOT nothingness?
Without the things I mentioned above,
the vacuum of space sure as hell is nothingness,
why would you think an oil diffusion pump
pumps out everything but the aether?



Allow me to put you in space . I will increase your size to 1 light year. Would you please wave your finger in space and restate that there is no aether. I suspect your hands are almost frozen as it would take a 6 months at the speed of light just to touch your nose. Somewhat like being stuck in corn starch and water. In this predicament of feeling the fabric of space with your own hands would you still be sure there is no aether?
Post by kefischer
Post by h***@yahoo.com
Post by JanPB
Post by kefischer
No, I am not aware of anybody having more
than one brain cell believing in any kind of aether. :-[)
What I've been saying for a while is that it's probably time for space
[sic] to become more of an actor in physics than it is now. Many
physical concepts underwent this kind of transformation, energy being
the most obvious example. I suspect the current huge disparity between
QM and GR is rooted there. In this sense such model of space could be
called "aether" but it would be nothing like that 19th century
"unobtanium"-type substance.
You both are wrong. The existence of Ether is self-evident (unlike
Relativity) and not something up to debate. The Ether, in a simplified ad
absurdium version, is the skeleton the Universe and all Measurable sits
IN. What you have is Math (the given Laws) and Eather. Having these two
things, matter pops inside as a consequence derived from the above two,
Logic and Ether.
This is just talk. Which reminds me: I am the Queen of England.
--
Jan
kefischer
2014-10-30 02:56:26 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 19:18:29 -0700 (PDT), John Heath
Post by kefischer
Post by kefischer
Of course it isn't "empty", there are stars,
planets, moons, light, magnetism, and whatever,
but no aether or medium that is space itself.
Post by kefischer
Post by h***@yahoo.com
that vacuum is NOT nothingness?
Without the things I mentioned above,
the vacuum of space sure as hell is nothingness,
why would you think an oil diffusion pump
pumps out everything but the aether?
Allow me to put you in space . I will increase your size to 1 light year. Would you please wave your finger in space and restate that there is no aether. I suspect your hands are almost frozen as it would take a 6 months at the speed of light just to touch your nose. Somewhat like being stuck in corn starch and water. In this predicament of feeling the fabric of space with your own hands would you still be sure there is no aether?
As sure as I can claim you are a top posting newbie
to Usenet using a newsreader and editor that does not
observe Usenet guidelines for hard carriage return line
lengths. :-[)


What you attribute to aether is just the same
phenomena that Mach and Euclid attributed to space.

Classical physics attributes inertia to something
connected physically in some way to the background
stars and other matter in space (requiring action at
a distance), and you attempt to do without the action
at a distance by adding the undetectable (but moronic)
aether.

It has been known for ages that aether cannot
provide the multitude of interactions with such great
precision that is observed, sorry about that.
John Heath
2014-10-30 04:26:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by kefischer
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 19:18:29 -0700 (PDT), John Heath
Post by kefischer
Post by kefischer
Of course it isn't "empty", there are stars,
planets, moons, light, magnetism, and whatever,
but no aether or medium that is space itself.
Post by kefischer
Post by h***@yahoo.com
that vacuum is NOT nothingness?
Without the things I mentioned above,
the vacuum of space sure as hell is nothingness,
why would you think an oil diffusion pump
pumps out everything but the aether?
Allow me to put you in space . I will increase your size to 1 light year. Would you please wave your finger in space and restate that there is no aether. I suspect your hands are almost frozen as it would take a 6 months at the speed of light just to touch your nose. Somewhat like being stuck in corn starch and water. In this predicament of feeling the fabric of space with your own hands would you still be sure there is no aether?
As sure as I can claim you are a top posting newbie
to Usenet using a newsreader and editor that does not
observe Usenet guidelines for hard carriage return line
lengths. :-[)
What you attribute to aether is just the same
phenomena that Mach and Euclid attributed to space.
Classical physics attributes inertia to something
connected physically in some way to the background
stars and other matter in space (requiring action at
a distance), and you attempt to do without the action
at a distance by adding the undetectable (but moronic)
aether.
It has been known for ages that aether cannot
provide the multitude of interactions with such great
precision that is observed, sorry about that.
Now I know what a top post is. Being of a positive nature I thought my status was raised to being the best post , top poster. Well I will not make that mistake again less I be thought of as one of those newbie.

It is not a linear Newtonian inertia limit to moving your arms. You should be able to move slowly with ease. It is when you try to move fast. The effective inertia would be greater than we experience due to the steep curve of a Lorentz transform. 5 miles per hour is fine but 10 MPH would be like hitting a brick wall as that would be the speed of light. The non Newtonian liquid of corn starch and water analogy covers it well but you would have to see it first hand to see the similarity. In any event I do not want to pull you over the fence on this one.

As to Mach he was sort of right to compare our inertia relative to stars. In general relativity your frame of reference is the mass around you weighted by how much and how far. For us it is the earth for a asteroid it is the solar system which is mostly the sun and for something way out there it would be the our galaxy. There is a second thought on inertia that is a little strange but worth giving its day in the sun. I will declare that a atom is in a state of oscillation of big then as small as a electron neutrino capable of tunnelling . The quantum guys love this analogy to no end. If I were to push a bunch of atoms like this I could only push the ones that are big. The ones that are small would just tunnel through what ever is pushing it. A short time later the small atoms would grow. If it were a round ball it would now be stretched as the smaller atoms were not pushed but the big ones were. As solid matter does not like being stretched it would reassemble it self half between where it was and where it was pushed. As this would be a on going process the average effect should be self inertia. This one does not require the Mach average of the universe as it is self relative inertia of the ball itself have no relevance to what is around it. It is a bit strange but then again so is inertia.
kefischer
2014-10-30 05:25:31 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 21:26:28 -0700 (PDT), John Heath
Post by John Heath
Post by kefischer
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 19:18:29 -0700 (PDT), John Heath
Post by kefischer
Post by kefischer
Of course it isn't "empty", there are stars,
planets, moons, light, magnetism, and whatever,
but no aether or medium that is space itself.
Post by kefischer
Post by h***@yahoo.com
that vacuum is NOT nothingness?
Without the things I mentioned above,
the vacuum of space sure as hell is nothingness,
why would you think an oil diffusion pump
pumps out everything but the aether?
Allow me to put you in space . I will increase your size to 1 light year. Would you please wave your finger in space and restate that there is no aether. I suspect your hands are almost frozen as it would take a 6 months at the speed of light just to touch your nose. Somewhat like being stuck in corn starch and water. In this predicament of feeling the fabric of space with your own hands would you still be sure there is no aether?
As sure as I can claim you are a top posting newbie
to Usenet using a newsreader and editor that does not
observe Usenet guidelines for hard carriage return line
lengths. :-[)
What you attribute to aether is just the same
phenomena that Mach and Euclid attributed to space.
Classical physics attributes inertia to something
connected physically in some way to the background
stars and other matter in space (requiring action at
a distance), and you attempt to do without the action
at a distance by adding the undetectable (but moronic)
aether.
It has been known for ages that aether cannot
provide the multitude of interactions with such great
precision that is observed, sorry about that.
Now I know what a top post is. Being of a positive nature I thought my status was raised to being the best post , top poster. Well I will not make that mistake again less I be thought of as one of those newbie.
Great. :-)

Now if you will only see if that G2 newsreader
can be configured to add hard carriage returns after
about 60 to 72 characters per line, you will conform
to Usenet guidelines for text messages.

Linux and other operating systems do not
use hard carriage returns (chr(13) + chr(10) in
addition to the linefeed character, and to conform,
those users would need to press the RETURN key
after the desired number of characters per line.
Post by John Heath
It is not a linear Newtonian inertia limit to moving your arms.
Actually, it is.
Post by John Heath
You should be able to move slowly with ease.
Right, but the effort is proportional to the
speed in some way.


It is when you try to move fast. The effective inertia would be greater
than we experience due to the steep curve of a Lorentz transform.

For us, Lorentz is not involved.
Post by John Heath
5 miles per hour is fine but 10 MPH would be like hitting a brick wall as that would be the speed of light.
You mean if I were 10 light years tall?
Post by John Heath
The non Newtonian liquid of corn starch and water analogy covers it well but you would have to see it first hand to see the similarity.
In any event I do not
want to pull you over the fence on this one.
Thank you for that, but an aether fluid would have
other properties if it were like most liquids, in addition
to viscosity, a liquid would have turbulence, inertia of
the liquid itself, causing an inertia much different than
the precise inertia directly proportional to mass at
our normal speeds and accelerations.
Post by John Heath
As to Mach he was sort of right to compare our inertia relative to stars.
In general relativity your frame of reference is the mass around you
weighted by how much and how far.
Actually, no. If that were an integral part of
GR or SR, it would be wrong. relative measured
and observed coordinate velocity is definitely
relative to nearby objects, but accelerations are not.

That is exactly what makes the Divergent
Matter kinematics difficult to realize, the index
for the true reference frame of an object moving
in space is merely the position at the last instance
in time, the shorter the intervals used in the math,
the more precise.
Post by John Heath
For us it is the earth
Only because the spot on the Earth you touch
has the same coordinates as you, the farther from
Earth you are, the greater the deviation due to
gravity can be.
Post by John Heath
for a asteroid it is the solar system
Not really, because that would require action
at a distance, something Newton disliked, but
accepted, in order to make his wonderful gravity
and mechanics math work.
Post by John Heath
which is mostly the sun and for something way
out there it would be the our galaxy.
That reverts back to Mach and the very
problem the Divergent Matter (and GR) attempt
to resolve, action at a distance with NO possible
physical cause or active mechanism.
Post by John Heath
There is a second thought on inertia that is a little strange
but worth giving its day in the sun.
I will declare that a atom is in a state of oscillation
of big then as small as a electron neutrino capable of tunnelling .
I think it is evident that most atoms are not
like that, else matter could not be compressed to
super-density.
Post by John Heath
The quantum guys love this analogy to no end.
I am not aware of a successful attempt at
quantum gravity.
Post by John Heath
If I were to push a bunch of atoms like this
I could only push the ones that are big.
Gravity pushes all of them so hard they
get compressed very close together, and unless
a lot of extra energy is added to the push to
cause them to stay that close together for
a while holding them that tightly together,
they continue trying to push apart.
Post by John Heath
The ones that are small would just tunnel
through what ever is pushing it.
I am not aware of anything like that
ever being observed en masse.
Post by John Heath
A short time later the small atoms would grow.
If it were a round ball it would now be stretched
as the smaller atoms were not pushed but the big ones were.
Can you reference a case where identical
chemical elements or compositions were seen
as having more than one size.
Post by John Heath
As solid matter does not like being stretched it would reassemble
it self half between where it was and where it was pushed.
As this would be a on going process the average effect should be
self inertia.
This one does not require the Mach average of the universe as it
is self relative inertia of the ball itself have no relevance to what
is around it. It is a bit strange but then again so is inertia.
The idea of self inertia is good because that
simplifies the needed physical mechanism needed
to enable inertia, but atoms could not reassemble,
there are strong forces holding them in their
formed configuration, chemistry and particle
and atomic physics has that described and
defined in precise detail.

It is only gravity that is the ultimate puzzle,
and once all the kinematics and dynamics of
the Divergent Matter model are described,
it will become apparent that all matter must
be expanding, there is no other possible
conclusion, there is no other physical
possibility that can explain gravity.
Koobee Wublee
2014-10-30 05:40:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by JanPB
Post by Darryl Wiseman Krauthaker
Post by JanPB
What I've been saying for a while is that it's probably time for space
[sic] to become more of an actor in physics than it is now. Many
physical concepts underwent this kind of transformation, energy being
the most obvious example. I suspect the current huge disparity between
QM and GR is rooted there. In this sense such model of space could be
called "aether" but it would be nothing like that 19th century
"unobtanium"-type substance.
You both are wrong. The existence of Ether is self-evident (unlike
Relativity) and not something up to debate. The Ether, in a simplified ad
absurdium version, is the skeleton the Universe and all Measurable sits
IN. What you have is Math (the given Laws) and Eather. Having these two
things, matter pops inside as a consequence derived from the above two,
Logic and Ether.
This is just talk.
The talk offers more implication that just a mundane talk. For some reasons of psychological disorder, Jan is equating GR with actors. Jan is gone. <shrug>
Post by JanPB
Which reminds me: I am the Queen of England.
Amen! <shrug>
Koobee Wublee
2014-10-30 05:45:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by JanPB
Post by Darryl Wiseman Krauthaker
Post by JanPB
What I've been saying for a while is that it's probably time for space
[sic] to become more of an actor in physics than it is now. Many
physical concepts underwent this kind of transformation, energy being
the most obvious example. I suspect the current huge disparity between
QM and GR is rooted there. In this sense such model of space could be
called "aether" but it would be nothing like that 19th century
"unobtanium"-type substance.
You both are wrong. The existence of Ether is self-evident (unlike
Relativity) and not something up to debate. The Ether, in a simplified ad
absurdium version, is the skeleton the Universe and all Measurable sits
IN. What you have is Math (the given Laws) and Eather. Having these two
things, matter pops inside as a consequence derived from the above two,
Logic and Ether.
This is just talk.
The talk offers more implication that just a mundane talk. For some reasons of psychological disorder, Jan is equating GR with actors. Jan is gone. <shrug>
Post by JanPB
Which reminds me: I am the Queen of England.
Amen! The queen is dead. God saves Jan. <shrug>
Justin Hunt
2014-10-30 18:35:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by JanPB
Post by Darryl Wiseman Krauthaker
You both are wrong. The existence of Ether is self-evident (unlike
Relativity) and not something up to debate. The Ether, in a simplified
ad absurdium version, is the skeleton the Universe and all Measurable
sits IN. What you have is Math (the given Laws) and Eather. Having
these two things, matter pops inside as a consequence derived from the
above two, Logic and Ether.
This is just talk. Which reminds me: I am the Queen of England.
Not just talk, but qualified talk. Take the Ether away and there will be
no place to put the Logic. Without Logic you have not even random of
nothing, there will be indeed not even wrong.
JanPB
2014-10-30 18:44:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Justin Hunt
Post by JanPB
Post by Darryl Wiseman Krauthaker
You both are wrong. The existence of Ether is self-evident (unlike
Relativity) and not something up to debate. The Ether, in a simplified
ad absurdium version, is the skeleton the Universe and all Measurable
sits IN. What you have is Math (the given Laws) and Eather. Having
these two things, matter pops inside as a consequence derived from the
above two, Logic and Ether.
This is just talk. Which reminds me: I am the Queen of England.
Not just talk, but qualified talk. Take the Ether away and there will be
no place to put the Logic. Without Logic you have not even random of
nothing, there will be indeed not even wrong.
Not even wrong.

--
Jan
Justin Hunt
2014-10-30 18:57:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by JanPB
Post by Justin Hunt
Post by JanPB
Post by Darryl Wiseman Krauthaker
You both are wrong. The existence of Ether is self-evident (unlike
Relativity) and not something up to debate. The Ether, in a
simplified ad absurdium version, is the skeleton the Universe and
all Measurable sits IN. What you have is Math (the given Laws) and
Eather. Having these two things, matter pops inside as a consequence
derived from the above two, Logic and Ether.
This is just talk. Which reminds me: I am the Queen of England.
Not just talk, but qualified talk. Take the Ether away and there will
be no place to put the Logic. Without Logic you have not even random of
nothing, there will be indeed not even wrong.
Not even wrong.
Okay, you have no Ether, tell me where you put the Logic in. That would be
also for no reason, knowingly having nothing to relate the Logic at. If
you say "not even wrong" again, it will interpret as "I am stupid."
JanPB
2014-10-30 19:54:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Justin Hunt
Post by JanPB
Post by Justin Hunt
Post by JanPB
Post by Darryl Wiseman Krauthaker
You both are wrong. The existence of Ether is self-evident (unlike
Relativity) and not something up to debate. The Ether, in a
simplified ad absurdium version, is the skeleton the Universe and
all Measurable sits IN. What you have is Math (the given Laws) and
Eather. Having these two things, matter pops inside as a consequence
derived from the above two, Logic and Ether.
This is just talk. Which reminds me: I am the Queen of England.
Not just talk, but qualified talk. Take the Ether away and there will
be no place to put the Logic. Without Logic you have not even random of
nothing, there will be indeed not even wrong.
Not even wrong.
Okay, you have no Ether, tell me where you put the Logic in. That would be
also for no reason, knowingly having nothing to relate the Logic at. If
you say "not even wrong" again, it will interpret as "I am stupid."
I try to use this phrase in a precise sense, as in: "Not even wrong refers to any statement, argument or explanation that can be neither correct nor incorrect, because it fails to meet the criteria by which correctness and incorrectness are determined" - see http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

It just so happens that models used currently in physics happen not to use (require) aether in the sense usually assigned to this word by its proponents. Of course this is not the last word (nothing in physics ever is) and it may well be that some experimental result or putting QM and GR together would require throwing some aether-like substance in the works.

But this is not a question of logic per se.

--
Jan
Justin Hunt
2014-10-30 20:52:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by JanPB
Post by Justin Hunt
Post by JanPB
Post by Justin Hunt
Post by JanPB
Post by Darryl Wiseman Krauthaker
You both are wrong. The existence of Ether is self-evident
(unlike Relativity) and not something up to debate. The Ether, in
a simplified ad absurdium version, is the skeleton the Universe
and all Measurable sits IN. What you have is Math (the given
Laws) and Eather. Having these two things, matter pops inside as
a consequence derived from the above two, Logic and Ether.
This is just talk. Which reminds me: I am the Queen of England.
Not just talk, but qualified talk. Take the Ether away and there
will be no place to put the Logic. Without Logic you have not even
random of nothing, there will be indeed not even wrong.
Not even wrong.
Okay, you have no Ether, tell me where you put the Logic in. That would
be also for no reason, knowingly having nothing to relate the Logic at.
If you say "not even wrong" again, it will interpret as "I am stupid."
I try to use this phrase in a precise sense, as in: "Not even wrong
refers to any statement, argument or explanation that can be neither
correct nor incorrect, because it fails to meet the criteria by which
correctness and incorrectness are determined" - see
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
It just so happens that models used currently in physics happen not to
use (require) aether in the sense usually assigned to this word by its
proponents. Of course this is not the last word (nothing in physics ever
is) and it may well be that some experimental result or putting QM and
GR together would require throwing some aether-like substance in the
works.
But this is not a question of logic per se.
You mean, there was space, empty, before the Big Bang?? Time as well? You
need a rigid Aether to do that.
g***@iinet.net.au
2014-10-31 03:03:30 UTC
Permalink
!!


you guys are the guys with the good maths. And some "actual" physics ability - lol.


The BB was a "short circuit".


No. Good questions.

If there was nothing before the BB. Then there would be no elements around to cause

the catastrophe.


Delving in to time before BB, might be as complex as Newtonian world and physics combined


lol
JanPB
2014-10-29 00:34:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@yahoo.com
Post by JanPB
My guess is space (and perhaps even time as well) will have to be reified
as there seems to be no other way out of the QM vs. GR dilemma.
I've been saying this around here since 1997 or so. I'm not sure if this
is correct, it's just a hunch. All "reasonable" methods of marrying QM
with GR have failed spectacularly. The two are also diametrically opposed
from the start: QM tries "gravitons" to "transmit the force of gravity"
while GR says "there is no such thing as force of gravity, so nothing
to transmit".
Jan
Hi Jan,
Isn't there some speculation that the virtual particle "sea" may be the new
aether (and, perhaps, spacetime, too)?
Gary
I don't know how well virtual particle sea works in a curved context.
In standard QFD it's all linear spaces (i.e. flat). I don't know how
gravitons are done in full-GR (i.e., not in its linear approximation).
And I'm not that smart, I just do my homework.

--
Jan
kefischer
2014-10-28 23:49:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by JanPB
Post by Pentcho Valev
Post by JanPB
My guess is space (and perhaps
even time as well) will have to be reified as there seems to be no other way
out of the QM vs. GR dilemma.
Is that the same Einsteinian zombie? What is going on?
Pentcho Valev
I've been saying this around here since 1997 or so. I'm not sure if this
is correct, it's just a hunch. All "reasonable" methods of marrying QM
with GR have failed spectacularly. The two are also diametrically opposed
from the start: QM tries "gravitons" to "transmit the force of gravity"
while GR says "there is no such thing as force of gravity, so nothing
to transmit".
If QM tries gravitons, then QM gravity will
be discarded, somebody there is stupid.

That would have to be either identical to
LeSage gravity, or the gravitons would have
to be "attractive". Ha Ha! That is funny.

Those gravitons would have to be really
smart, and only attract a specific force according
to the mass of the attracted object. Funny!

Newton would not have liked it, he
never liked action at a distance.
h***@yahoo.com
2014-10-29 00:06:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by JanPB
I've been saying this around here since 1997 or so. I'm not sure if this
is correct, it's just a hunch. All "reasonable" methods of marrying QM
with GR have failed spectacularly. The two are also diametrically opposed
from the start: QM tries "gravitons" to "transmit the force of gravity"
while GR says "there is no such thing as force of gravity, so nothing
to transmit".
If QM tries gravitons, then QM gravity will be discarded,
There is no certainty of that.
somebody there is stupid.
"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible,
he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he
is very probably wrong." -- Arthur C. Clarke

You need to realize that YOU have an uninformed opinion, not a theory.
That would have to be either identical to LeSage gravity,
Nope. You either misunderstand Lesage gravity, or QM, or both.
or the gravitons would have to be "attractive". Ha Ha! That is funny.
Yep, you don't understand QM.
Those gravitons would have to be really smart, and only attract a specific
force according to the mass of the attracted object. Funny!
Newton would not have liked it, he never liked action at a distance.
But he swallowed it anyway, did he not? But you misunderstand gravitons.
You have uninformed opinions.

"You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed
opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant." -- Harlan Ellison

YOU are swallowed much greater nonsense with DM.
kenseto
2014-10-29 01:07:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by JanPB
Post by Pentcho Valev
Post by JanPB
My guess is space (and perhaps
even time as well) will have to be reified as there seems to be no other way
out of the QM vs. GR dilemma.
Is that the same Einsteinian zombie? What is going on?
Pentcho Valev
I've been saying this around here since 1997 or so. I'm not sure if this
is correct, it's just a hunch. All "reasonable" methods of marrying QM
with GR have failed spectacularly. The two are also diametrically opposed
from the start: QM tries "gravitons" to "transmit the force of gravity"
while GR says "there is no such thing as force of gravity, so nothing
to transmit".
Marrying QM and gravity is easy if you accept the concept of absolute motion. The paper in the following link show how all the forces of nature (including gravity) arise from absolute motions between interacting objects.
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011unification.pdf
htt
Koobee Wublee
2014-10-29 06:22:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pentcho Valev
Spacetime, the breathtaking consequence of Einstein's 1905 two
postulates, is wrong and will have to be abandoned (at least
[...]
Spacetime physics is wrong from the very beginning. Consider the following spacetime geometry being observed by someone with a coordinate system:

** dS^2 = [g]_ij d[q]^i d[q]^j ... spacetime geometry

Where

** [g] = the matrix that represents the metric
** [g]_ij = elements of the matrix [g]
** [q] = the matrix that represents the coordinate system
** [q]^i, [q]^j = elements of the matrix [q]

The spacetime geometry must be invariant regardless who the observer is. Thus,

** dS^2 = invariant

Of course the invariant concept does not extend to [g] the metric where there is only one unique metric per choice of coordinate system in describing the invariant geometry dS. If one wishes to employ another coordinate system, another matrix representing the metric must also be considered. Does anyone want to challenge Koobee Wublee on this concept of invariance? <shrug>

Now, let's consider the example of the Schwarzschild metric below. <shrug>

** dS^2 = c^2 (1 - 2 U) dt^2 - dr^2 / (1 - 2 U) - r^2 dO^2

Where

** diagonal [c^2 (1 - 2 U), -1 / (1 - 2 U), - r^2] = the metric
** (r, O) = choice of coordinate system (polar coordinate system)
** U = G M / c^2 / r ... gravitational potential at dS
** dO^2 = cos^2(Latitude) dLongitude^2 + dLatitude^2

Since we know what dS is, the above equation can be written as the following where the glaring silliness of the spacetime physics is ever so apparent. <shrug>

** c^2 (1 - 2 U) dTau^2 = c^2 (1 - 2 U) dt^2 - dr^2 / (1 - 2 U) - r^2 dO^2

Or

** dTau = dt sqrt(1 - B^2) ... local flow rate of time at dS

Where

** B^2 c^2 = (dr/dt)^2 / (1 - 2 U)^2 + r^2 (dO/dt)^2 / (1 - 2 U)

Correct Koobee Wublee if Koobee Wublee is wrong. The equation above mapping the observed local time dTau contains no gravitational potential of the observer with coordinate time of dt. This means GR is predicting a null gravitational Doppler or gravitational shift, and GR is totally incapable of describing how the satellite time of the GPS constellation is related to the earth ground. In another words, GR based on the flawed concept of spacetime is very fvcked up. Koobee Wublee thinks "very fvcked up" is the best phrase to describe GR. If someone has a better phrase, please let's discuss it. <shrug>
JanPB
2014-10-29 06:52:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Koobee Wublee
Post by Pentcho Valev
Spacetime, the breathtaking consequence of Einstein's 1905 two
postulates, is wrong and will have to be abandoned (at least
[...]
[the usual]
Post by Koobee Wublee
Correct Koobee Wublee if Koobee Wublee is wrong.
This is impossible for the following reason:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fractal_wrongness#Dealing_with_the_fractally_wrong

--
Jan
g***@iinet.net.au
2014-10-29 07:18:25 UTC
Permalink
It is good to discuss General Relativity.


For a start I don't know what the equations are. Please teach me !!


From my understanding, General Relativity with a connection to space time , is really really bad.

The results really do not stack up to experimental evidence. And probably for a really long time.
Koobee Wublee
2014-10-29 07:25:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by JanPB
Post by Koobee Wublee
Spacetime physics is wrong from the very beginning. Consider the
following spacetime geometry being observed by someone with a
** dS^2 = [g]_ij d[q]^i d[q]^j ... spacetime geometry
Where
** [g] = the matrix that represents the metric
** [g]_ij = elements of the matrix [g]
** [q] = the matrix that represents the coordinate system
** [q]^i, [q]^j = elements of the matrix [q]
The spacetime geometry must be invariant regardless who the
observer is. Thus,
** dS^2 = invariant
Of course the invariant concept does not extend to [g] the metric
where there is only one unique metric per choice of coordinate system
in describing the invariant geometry dS. If one wishes to employ
another coordinate system, another matrix representing the metric
must also be considered. Does anyone want to challenge Koobee Wublee
on this concept of invariance? <shrug>
Now, let's consider the example of the Schwarzschild metric below.
<shrug>
** dS^2 = c^2 (1 - 2 U) dt^2 - dr^2 / (1 - 2 U) - r^2 dO^2
Where
** diagonal [c^2 (1 - 2 U), -1 / (1 - 2 U), - r^2] = the metric
** (r, O) = choice of coordinate system (polar coordinate system)
** U = G M / c^2 / r ... gravitational potential at dS
** dO^2 = cos^2(Latitude) dLongitude^2 + dLatitude^2
Since we know what dS is, the above equation can be written as the
following where the glaring silliness of the spacetime physics is
ever so apparent. <shrug>
** c^2 (1 - 2 U) dTau^2 = c^2 (1 - 2 U) dt^2 - dr^2 / (1 - 2 U)
- r^2 dO^2
Or
** dTau = dt sqrt(1 - B^2) ... local flow rate of time at dS
Where
** B^2 c^2 = (dr/dt)^2 / (1 - 2 U)^2 + r^2 (dO/dt)^2 / (1 - 2 U)
Correct Koobee Wublee if Koobee Wublee is wrong. The equation above
mapping the observed local time dTau contains no gravitational
potential of the observer with coordinate time of dt. This means GR
is predicting a null gravitational Doppler or gravitational shift,
and GR is totally incapable of describing how the satellite time of
the GPS constellation is related to the earth ground. In another
words, GR based on the flawed concept of spacetime is very fvcked
up. Koobee Wublee thinks "very fvcked up" is the best phrase to
describe GR. If someone has a better phrase, please let's discuss
it. <shrug>
[the usual]
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fractal_wrongness#Dealing_with_the_fractally_wrong
Jan is really lost, and this shows what an imbecile Jan truly is. Jan knows almost nothing but is blessed with bullshittig its way through. <shrug>
g***@iinet.net.au
2014-10-29 07:55:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Koobee Wublee
Post by JanPB
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fractal_wrongness#Dealing_with_the_fractally_wrong
Jan is really lost, and this shows what an imbecile Jan truly is. Jan knows almost nothing but is blessed with bullshittig its way through. <shrug>
Jan tries her best.
But somewhat un-inspiring.
Darryl Wiseman Krauthaker
2014-10-29 18:10:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Koobee Wublee
Post by JanPB
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/
Fractal_wrongness#Dealing_with_the_fractally_wrong
Post by Koobee Wublee
Jan is really lost, and this shows what an imbecile Jan truly is. Jan
knows almost nothing but is blessed with bullshittig its way through.
<shrug>
JanPB only understand something he understand. All the rest must be wrong,
as a consequence of that.
Darryl Wiseman Krauthaker
2014-10-29 18:08:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by JanPB
Post by Koobee Wublee
Spacetime physics is wrong from the very beginning. Consider the
following spacetime geometry being observed by someone with a
[the usual]
Post by Koobee Wublee
Correct Koobee Wublee if Koobee Wublee is wrong.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/
Fractal_wrongness#Dealing_with_the_fractally_wrong

This kind of argument can be used to anybody making any sort of argument,
right or wrong, even against you. Or especially against you.
Paul B. Andersen
2014-10-29 10:13:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Koobee Wublee
Post by Pentcho Valev
Spacetime, the breathtaking consequence of Einstein's 1905 two
postulates, is wrong and will have to be abandoned (at least
[...]
** dS^2 = [g]_ij d[q]^i d[q]^j ... spacetime geometry
Where
** [g] = the matrix that represents the metric
** [g]_ij = elements of the matrix [g]
** [q] = the matrix that represents the coordinate system
** [q]^i, [q]^j = elements of the matrix [q]
The spacetime geometry must be invariant regardless who the observer is. Thus,
** dS^2 = invariant
Of course the invariant concept does not extend to [g] the metric where there is only one unique metric per choice of coordinate system in describing the invariant geometry dS. If one wishes to employ another coordinate system, another matrix representing the metric must also be considered. Does anyone want to challenge Koobee Wublee on this concept of invariance? <shrug>
Now, let's consider the example of the Schwarzschild metric below. <shrug>
** dS^2 = c^2 (1 - 2 U) dt^2 - dr^2 / (1 - 2 U) - r^2 dO^2
Where
** diagonal [c^2 (1 - 2 U), -1 / (1 - 2 U), - r^2] = the metric
** (r, O) = choice of coordinate system (polar coordinate system)
** U = G M / c^2 / r ... gravitational potential at dS
** dO^2 = cos^2(Latitude) dLongitude^2 + dLatitude^2
Since we know what dS is, the above equation can be written as the following where the glaring silliness of the spacetime physics is ever so apparent. <shrug>
** c^2 (1 - 2 U) dTau^2 = c^2 (1 - 2 U) dt^2 - dr^2 / (1 - 2 U) - r^2 dO^2
Or
** dTau = dt sqrt(1 - B^2) ... local flow rate of time at dS
Where
** B^2 c^2 = (dr/dt)^2 / (1 - 2 U)^2 + r^2 (dO/dt)^2 / (1 - 2 U)
Correct Koobee Wublee if Koobee Wublee is wrong.
With pleasure ..
Post by Koobee Wublee
The equation above mapping the observed local time dTau
contains no gravitational potential of the observer with coordinate time of dt.
This means GR is predicting a null gravitational Doppler or gravitational shift,
Correcting Koobee Wublee:
https://paulba.no/pdf/PoundRebka.pdf
Post by Koobee Wublee
and GR is totally incapable of describing how the satellite time of the GPS constellation
is related to the earth ground.
Correcting Koobee Wublee:
https://paulba.no/pdf/GPS_clock_rate.pdf
Post by Koobee Wublee
In another words, GR based on the flawed concept of spacetime is very fvcked up.
Koobee Wublee thinks "very fvcked up" is the best phrase to describe GR.
If someone has a better phrase, please let's discuss it. <shrug>
Your phrase: " Koobee Wublee thinks 'very fvcked up' " is quite appropriate.

Apropos of "very fvcked up":
https://paulba.no/div/Koobees_blunder.pdf
--
Paul

https://PaulBA.no/
g***@iinet.net.au
2014-10-29 12:49:57 UTC
Permalink
- - - -- - - excellent !

- -- - cannot understand a "word" of it.
lol
g***@iinet.net.au
2014-10-29 12:55:09 UTC
Permalink
.. thanks !


so , there is some mathematics involved for running of GPS systems. this would be interesting for any
space research.
lol
Koobee Wublee
2014-10-29 20:34:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Koobee Wublee
Spacetime physics is wrong from the very beginning. Consider the following
** dS^2 = [g]_ij d[q]^i d[q]^j ... spacetime geometry
Where
** [g] = the matrix that represents the metric
** [g]_ij = elements of the matrix [g]
** [q] = the matrix that represents the coordinate system
** [q]^i, [q]^j = elements of the matrix [q]
The spacetime geometry must be invariant regardless who the observer is.
Thus,
** dS^2 = invariant
Of course the invariant concept does not extend to [g] the metric where
there is only one unique metric per choice of coordinate system in
describing the invariant geometry dS. If one wishes to employ another
coordinate system, another matrix representing the metric must also be
considered. Does anyone want to challenge Koobee Wublee on this concept
of invariance? <shrug>
Now, let's consider the example of the Schwarzschild metric below.
<shrug>
** dS^2 = c^2 (1 - 2 U) dt^2 - dr^2 / (1 - 2 U) - r^2 dO^2
Where
** diagonal [c^2 (1 - 2 U), -1 / (1 - 2 U), - r^2] = the metric
** (r, O) = choice of coordinate system (polar coordinate system)
** U = G M / c^2 / r ... gravitational potential at dS
** dO^2 = cos^2(Latitude) dLongitude^2 + dLatitude^2
Since we know what dS is, the above equation can be written as the
following where the glaring silliness of the spacetime physics is ever so
apparent. <shrug>
** c^2 (1 - 2 U) dTau^2 = c^2 (1 - 2 U) dt^2 - dr^2 / (1 - 2 U) - r^2 dO^2
Or
** dTau = dt sqrt(1 - B^2) ... local flow rate of time at dS
Where
** B^2 c^2 = (dr/dt)^2 / (1 - 2 U)^2 + r^2 (dO/dt)^2 / (1 - 2 U)
Correct Koobee Wublee if Koobee Wublee is wrong.
With pleasure ..
Hopefully, Paul is not doing it with farce. <shrug>
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Koobee Wublee
The equation above mapping the observed local time dTau contains no
gravitational potential of the observer with coordinate time of dt.
This means GR is predicting a null gravitational Doppler or
gravitational shift, and GR is totally incapable of describing how the
satellite time of the GPS constellation is related to the earth ground.
https://paulba.no/pdf/PoundRebka.pdf
https://paulba.no/pdf/GPS_clock_rate.pdf
Paul's works are wrong for the reasons that Koobee Wublee has raised. Paul is tossing its shit around again. <shrug>
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Koobee Wublee
In another words, GR based on the flawed concept of spacetime is very
fvcked up. Koobee Wublee thinks "very fvcked up" is the best phrase
to describe GR. If someone has a better phrase, please let's discuss
it. <shrug>
Your phrase: " Koobee Wublee thinks 'very fvcked up' " is quite appropriate.
https://paulba.no/div/Koobees_blunder.pdf
Paul is tossing more shit. In the meantime, the phrase 'very fvcked up' is still good to describe the spacetime physics. <shrug>
Paul B. Andersen
2014-10-30 10:05:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Koobee Wublee
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Koobee Wublee
Spacetime physics is wrong from the very beginning. Consider the following
** dS^2 = [g]_ij d[q]^i d[q]^j ... spacetime geometry
Where
** [g] = the matrix that represents the metric
** [g]_ij = elements of the matrix [g]
** [q] = the matrix that represents the coordinate system
** [q]^i, [q]^j = elements of the matrix [q]
The spacetime geometry must be invariant regardless who the observer is.
Thus,
** dS^2 = invariant
Of course the invariant concept does not extend to [g] the metric where
there is only one unique metric per choice of coordinate system in
describing the invariant geometry dS. If one wishes to employ another
coordinate system, another matrix representing the metric must also be
considered. Does anyone want to challenge Koobee Wublee on this concept
of invariance? <shrug>
Now, let's consider the example of the Schwarzschild metric below.
<shrug>
** dS^2 = c^2 (1 - 2 U) dt^2 - dr^2 / (1 - 2 U) - r^2 dO^2
Where
** diagonal [c^2 (1 - 2 U), -1 / (1 - 2 U), - r^2] = the metric
** (r, O) = choice of coordinate system (polar coordinate system)
** U = G M / c^2 / r ... gravitational potential at dS
** dO^2 = cos^2(Latitude) dLongitude^2 + dLatitude^2
Since we know what dS is, the above equation can be written as the
following where the glaring silliness of the spacetime physics is ever so
apparent. <shrug>
** c^2 (1 - 2 U) dTau^2 = c^2 (1 - 2 U) dt^2 - dr^2 / (1 - 2 U) - r^2 dO^2
Or
** dTau = dt sqrt(1 - B^2) ... local flow rate of time at dS
Where
** B^2 c^2 = (dr/dt)^2 / (1 - 2 U)^2 + r^2 (dO/dt)^2 / (1 - 2 U)
Correct Koobee Wublee if Koobee Wublee is wrong.
With pleasure ..
Hopefully, Paul is not doing it with farce. <shrug>
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Koobee Wublee
The equation above mapping the observed local time dTau contains no
gravitational potential of the observer with coordinate time of dt.
This means GR is predicting a null gravitational Doppler or
gravitational shift, and GR is totally incapable of describing how the
satellite time of the GPS constellation is related to the earth ground.
https://paulba.no/pdf/PoundRebka.pdf
https://paulba.no/pdf/GPS_clock_rate.pdf
Paul's works are wrong for the reasons that Koobee Wublee has raised. Paul is tossing its shit around again. <shrug>
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Koobee Wublee
In another words, GR based on the flawed concept of spacetime is very
fvcked up. Koobee Wublee thinks "very fvcked up" is the best phrase
to describe GR. If someone has a better phrase, please let's discuss
it. <shrug>
Your phrase: " Koobee Wublee thinks 'very fvcked up' " is quite appropriate.
https://paulba.no/div/Koobees_blunder.pdf
Paul is tossing more shit. In the meantime, the phrase 'very fvcked up' is still good to describe the spacetime physics. <shrug>
:-D

I rest my case. <shrug>
--
Paul

https://PaulBA.no/
g***@iinet.net.au
2014-10-30 13:57:02 UTC
Permalink
Einstein was an interesting man. I marveled at how he was able to create science from something as machineless as thinking.

But then we have come far to make things work. Commercially. And keep them going.

And necessary, I guess, for making QM - somewhat Mechanical. Otherwise it is theory.
kefischer
2014-10-30 14:55:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@iinet.net.au
Einstein was an interesting man. I marveled at how he was able to create science from something as machineless as thinking.
He did some research, did library research,
and was aware of a lot of new science as a reviewer
for the journal of the day.
Post by g***@iinet.net.au
But then we have come far to make things work. Commercially. And keep them going.
And necessary, I guess, for making QM - somewhat Mechanical. Otherwise it is theory.
For some things, maybe not all.
g***@iinet.net.au
2014-10-30 15:25:57 UTC
Permalink
thanks for the facts ; )


was einstein a cheat ? was he a gift from heaven ? apologies if this is "obtuse" it is halloween.



he is TOO perfect.


a library researcher, a cosmic genius. ? It is too perfect.




Sorry, I guess what I am alluding to , is that he was "perfect".


Very cosmic.



g
Maciej Woźniak
2014-10-31 17:12:59 UTC
Permalink
Użytkownik "kefischer" napisał w wiadomości grup
Post by g***@iinet.net.au
Einstein was an interesting man. I marveled at how he was able to create
science from something as machineless as thinking.
| He did some research, did library research,
|and was aware of a lot of new science as a reviewer
|for the journal of the day.

He was a poor idiot, determined to create new, better
observer.
Quite similiarly to his friends Lenin and Trocki.
JanPB
2014-10-31 20:51:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Woźniak
Użytkownik "kefischer" napisał w wiadomości grup
Post by g***@iinet.net.au
Einstein was an interesting man. I marveled at how he was able to create
science from something as machineless as thinking.
| He did some research, did library research,
|and was aware of a lot of new science as a reviewer
|for the journal of the day.
He was a poor idiot, determined to create new, better
observer.
Quite similiarly to his friends Lenin and Trocki.
Haha, that's a funny one. No, that was not what he was "determined" to do.
BTW, you will never be taken seriously unless you get rid of that silly
personal vendetta against Einstein. It makes people recoil from your
arguments.

Did you know Lenin, Witkacy, and also Dr. Birula-Bialynicki used to have
the same dentist in Zakopane? I forget his name.

--
Jan
Maciej Woźniak
2014-10-31 21:23:58 UTC
Permalink
Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
Post by Maciej Woźniak
Użytkownik "kefischer" napisał w wiadomości grup
Post by g***@iinet.net.au
Einstein was an interesting man. I marveled at how he was able to create
science from something as machineless as thinking.
| He did some research, did library research,
|and was aware of a lot of new science as a reviewer
|for the journal of the day.
He was a poor idiot, determined to create new, better
observer.
Quite similiarly to his friends Lenin and Trocki.
|Haha, that's a funny one. No, that was not what he was "determined" to do.

Yes, poor idiot, that was exactly what he was determined to do.

|BTW, you will never be taken seriously unless

Fuck off, buddy, with Your "serious" taking.

|Did you know Lenin, Witkacy, and also Dr. Birula-Bialynicki used to have
|the same dentist in Zakopane? I forget his name.

"Odeon" was not a dentist. It was a place of meeting for some
similiarly thinking radical idiots, joined by belief, that "old ways"
are bad and ugly and must be replaced by new, better, "scientific"
ideas of their invention.
Such idiots, like Lenin, Trocki and Your Great Guru.
JanPB
2014-11-01 00:14:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Woźniak
Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
Post by Maciej Woźniak
Użytkownik "kefischer" napisał w wiadomości grup
Post by g***@iinet.net.au
Einstein was an interesting man. I marveled at how he was able to create
science from something as machineless as thinking.
| He did some research, did library research,
|and was aware of a lot of new science as a reviewer
|for the journal of the day.
He was a poor idiot, determined to create new, better
observer.
Quite similiarly to his friends Lenin and Trocki.
|Haha, that's a funny one. No, that was not what he was "determined" to do.
Yes, poor idiot, that was exactly what he was determined to do.
|BTW, you will never be taken seriously unless
Fuck off, buddy, with Your "serious" taking.
|Did you know Lenin, Witkacy, and also Dr. Birula-Bialynicki used to have
|the same dentist in Zakopane? I forget his name.
"Odeon" was not a dentist.
I was talking about a specific person. He was a dentist in Zakopane.
If you didn't know that, just admit it and move on. Or say nothing.
If I told you which manicurist on Marszalkowska Street Stefan Ossowiecki
used to go to most Thursdays, would you debate that too?
Post by Maciej Woźniak
It was a place of meeting for some
similiarly thinking radical idiots, joined by belief, that "old ways"
are bad and ugly and must be replaced by new, better, "scientific"
ideas of their invention.
Such idiots, like Lenin, Trocki and Your Great Guru.
Just say what the reason for your dislike of Einstein is if you want
to be taken seriously. Calling everyone "idiot" won't get you anywhere.

--
Jan
g***@iinet.net.au
2014-11-01 06:50:03 UTC
Permalink
the joys of space time... errr.... I mean Star Trek.


determinism ?


Star Wars I Star Wars 2 Star Wars 3 -> Star Trek 1 etc.


Flash Gordon turn of the century


way before 1970s.
Maciej Woźniak
2014-11-01 08:08:46 UTC
Permalink
Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
Post by Maciej Woźniak
Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
Post by Maciej Woźniak
Użytkownik "kefischer" napisał w wiadomości grup
Post by g***@iinet.net.au
Einstein was an interesting man. I marveled at how he was able to create
science from something as machineless as thinking.
| He did some research, did library research,
|and was aware of a lot of new science as a reviewer
|for the journal of the day.
He was a poor idiot, determined to create new, better
observer.
Quite similiarly to his friends Lenin and Trocki.
|Haha, that's a funny one. No, that was not what he was "determined" to do.
Yes, poor idiot, that was exactly what he was determined to do.
|BTW, you will never be taken seriously unless
Fuck off, buddy, with Your "serious" taking.
|Did you know Lenin, Witkacy, and also Dr. Birula-Bialynicki used to have
|the same dentist in Zakopane? I forget his name.
"Odeon" was not a dentist.
|I was talking about a specific person.

Yes, You were. And I was talking about a specific pub.
Post by Maciej Woźniak
It was a place of meeting for some
similiarly thinking radical idiots, joined by belief, that "old ways"
are bad and ugly and must be replaced by new, better, "scientific"
ideas of their invention.
Such idiots, like Lenin, Trocki and Your Great Guru.
|Just say what the reason for your dislike of Einstein is if you want
|to be taken seriously.

The reason for my dislike of Einstein I've said 2 posts
ago: he was nothing but poor idiot, trying to create
new, better observer, denying common sense prejudices
and following his Genial Shit.
And I'm surely not expecting, that any poor idiot I'm
calling "poor idiot" will take me seriously.

|Calling everyone "idiot" won't get you anywhere.

Probably not. But I'm not calling "idiot" everyone.
Just physicists and other followers of Great Guru.
JanPB
2014-11-02 05:40:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Woźniak
Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
Post by Maciej Woźniak
Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
Post by Maciej Woźniak
Użytkownik "kefischer" napisał w wiadomości grup
Post by g***@iinet.net.au
Einstein was an interesting man. I marveled at how he was able to create
science from something as machineless as thinking.
| He did some research, did library research,
|and was aware of a lot of new science as a reviewer
|for the journal of the day.
He was a poor idiot, determined to create new, better
observer.
Quite similiarly to his friends Lenin and Trocki.
|Haha, that's a funny one. No, that was not what he was "determined" to do.
Yes, poor idiot, that was exactly what he was determined to do.
|BTW, you will never be taken seriously unless
Fuck off, buddy, with Your "serious" taking.
Everyone who responds to you on this NG does for entertainment. Your
behaviour here makes it extraordinary easy for everyone to dismiss your
posts as inane rants as they contain no arguments, just invective in
somewhat idiosyncratic English.
Post by Maciej Woźniak
Post by Maciej Woźniak
|Did you know Lenin, Witkacy, and also Dr. Birula-Bialynicki used to have
|the same dentist in Zakopane? I forget his name.
"Odeon" was not a dentist.
|I was talking about a specific person.
Yes, You were. And I was talking about a specific pub.
Why don't you talk to yourself, then.
Post by Maciej Woźniak
Post by Maciej Woźniak
It was a place of meeting for some
similiarly thinking radical idiots, joined by belief, that "old ways"
are bad and ugly and must be replaced by new, better, "scientific"
ideas of their invention.
Such idiots, like Lenin, Trocki and Your Great Guru.
|Just say what the reason for your dislike of Einstein is if you want
|to be taken seriously.
The reason for my dislike of Einstein I've said 2 posts
ago: he was nothing but poor idiot, trying to create
new, better observer, denying common sense prejudices
and following his Genial Shit.
What you wrote above has no content. Let's read it carefully, shall we?

1. "The reason for my dislike of Einstein [...] he was nothing but poor idiot."

That's just a childish rant. Not worth responding to.

2. "...trying to create new, better observer"

He was not doing that. He was seeking to resolve a certain paradox in
electrodynamics.

3. "...denying common sense prejudices and following his Genial Shit"

A tantrum, again: "Denying common sense" is meaningless without
explaining what "common sense" is supposed to mean in this case. Besides,
it's obvious your hatred of Einstein is rooted somewhere else since
other physics theories, notably quantum mechanics, are vastly less
"sensible" in this "common" sense, yet you don't attack Schroedinger or
Heisenberg. Last but not least, the word "genial" does not mean in English
what you think it means.
Post by Maciej Woźniak
And I'm surely not expecting, that any poor idiot I'm
calling "poor idiot" will take me seriously.
No, of course not. It's just words. Anyone can say them. You need more
than rants to be taken seriously. For now you entertain me. That's why
I keep responding to you.
Post by Maciej Woźniak
|Calling everyone "idiot" won't get you anywhere.
Probably not. But I'm not calling "idiot" everyone.
Just physicists and other followers of Great Guru.
You are boring.

--
Jan

Koobee Wublee
2014-10-30 18:18:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Koobee Wublee
Spacetime physics is wrong from the very beginning. Consider the following
** dS^2 = [g]_ij d[q]^i d[q]^j ... spacetime geometry
Where
** [g] = the matrix that represents the metric
** [g]_ij = elements of the matrix [g]
** [q] = the matrix that represents the coordinate system
** [q]^i, [q]^j = elements of the matrix [q]
The spacetime geometry must be invariant regardless who the observer is.
Thus,
** dS^2 = invariant
Of course the invariant concept does not extend to [g] the metric where
there is only one unique metric per choice of coordinate system in
describing the invariant geometry dS. If one wishes to employ another
coordinate system, another matrix representing the metric must also be
considered. Does anyone want to challenge Koobee Wublee on this concept
of invariance? <shrug>
Now, let's consider the example of the Schwarzschild metric below.
<shrug>
** dS^2 = c^2 (1 - 2 U) dt^2 - dr^2 / (1 - 2 U) - r^2 dO^2
Where
** diagonal [c^2 (1 - 2 U), -1 / (1 - 2 U), - r^2] = the metric
** (r, O) = choice of coordinate system (polar coordinate system)
** U = G M / c^2 / r ... gravitational potential at dS
** dO^2 = cos^2(Latitude) dLongitude^2 + dLatitude^2
Since we know what dS is, the above equation can be written as the
following where the glaring silliness of the spacetime physics is ever so
apparent. <shrug>
** c^2 (1 - 2 U) dTau^2 = c^2 (1 - 2 U) dt^2 - dr^2 / (1 - 2 U) - r^2 dO^2
Or
** dTau = dt sqrt(1 - B^2) ... local flow rate of time at dS
Where
** B^2 c^2 = (dr/dt)^2 / (1 - 2 U)^2 + r^2 (dO/dt)^2 / (1 - 2 U)
:-D I rest my case. <shrug>
Paul decides to run away again and faces its own blunders. In the meantime, this post points out Paul's blunders below. <shrug>
https://paulba.no/pdf/PoundRebka.pdf
https://paulba.no/pdf/GPS_clock_rate.pdf
Paul B. Andersen
2014-10-30 19:37:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Koobee Wublee
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Koobee Wublee
GR is predicting a null gravitational Doppler or gravitational shift,
https://paulba.no/pdf/PoundRebka.pdf
Post by Koobee Wublee
and GR is totally incapable of describing how the satellite time of the GPS constellation
is related to the earth ground.
https://paulba.no/pdf/GPS_clock_rate.pdf
:-D I rest my case. <shrug>
Paul decides to run away again and faces its own blunders.
In the meantime, this post points out Paul's blunders below. <shrug>
Post by Paul B. Andersen
https://paulba.no/pdf/PoundRebka.pdf
https://paulba.no/pdf/GPS_clock_rate.pdf
https://paulba.no/div/Koobees_blunder.pdf
<shrug>
--
Paul

https://PaulBA.no/
Justin Hunt
2014-10-30 19:39:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Koobee Wublee
Paul decides to run away again and faces its own blunders.
In the meantime, this post points out Paul's blunders below. <shrug>
Post by Paul B. Andersen
https://paulba.no/pdf/PoundRebka.pdf
https://paulba.no/pdf/GPS_clock_rate.pdf
https://paulba.no/div/Koobees_blunder.pdf
Remove the many errors before posting the links to internet.
Koobee Wublee
2014-10-31 07:02:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Koobee Wublee
Spacetime physics is wrong from the very beginning. Consider the following
** dS^2 = [g]_ij d[q]^i d[q]^j ... spacetime geometry
Where
** [g] = the matrix that represents the metric
** [g]_ij = elements of the matrix [g]
** [q] = the matrix that represents the coordinate system
** [q]^i, [q]^j = elements of the matrix [q]
The spacetime geometry must be invariant regardless who the observer is.
Thus,
** dS^2 = invariant
Of course the invariant concept does not extend to [g] the metric where
there is only one unique metric per choice of coordinate system in
describing the invariant geometry dS. If one wishes to employ another
coordinate system, another matrix representing the metric must also be
considered. Does anyone want to challenge Koobee Wublee on this concept
of invariance? <shrug>
Now, let's consider the example of the Schwarzschild metric below.
<shrug>
** dS^2 = c^2 (1 - 2 U) dt^2 - dr^2 / (1 - 2 U) - r^2 dO^2
Where
** diagonal [c^2 (1 - 2 U), -1 / (1 - 2 U), - r^2] = the metric
** (r, O) = choice of coordinate system (polar coordinate system)
** U = G M / c^2 / r ... gravitational potential at dS
** dO^2 = cos^2(Latitude) dLongitude^2 + dLatitude^2
Since we know what dS is, the above equation can be written as the
following where the glaring silliness of the spacetime physics is ever so
apparent. <shrug>
** c^2 (1 - 2 U) dTau^2 = c^2 (1 - 2 U) dt^2 - dr^2 / (1 - 2 U) - r^2 dO^2
Or
** dTau = dt sqrt(1 - B^2) ... local flow rate of time at dS
Where
** B^2 c^2 = (dr/dt)^2 / (1 - 2 U)^2 + r^2 (dO/dt)^2 / (1 - 2 U)
Yes, Paul ran away again after resting its ignorant case. <shrug>
Paul B. Andersen
2014-10-31 14:18:24 UTC
Permalink
[Koobee Wublee snipping what he can't refute]
Post by Koobee Wublee
Yes, Paul ran away again after resting its ignorant case. <shrug>
Quite.
But observed from my rest frame, you are running away from this:

https://paulba.no/pdf/PoundRebka.pdf
https://paulba.no/pdf/GPS_clock_rate.pdf
https://paulba.no/div/Koobees_blunder.pdf

Why else would you snip it?

<shrug>
--
Paul

https://PaulBA.no/
Charles Cruz
2014-10-31 14:41:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul B. Andersen
[Koobee Wublee snipping what he can't refute]
Post by Koobee Wublee
Yes, Paul ran away again after resting its ignorant case. <shrug>
Quite.
https://paulba.no/pdf/PoundRebka.pdf
https://paulba.no/pdf/GPS_clock_rate.pdf
https://paulba.no/div/Koobees_blunder.pdf
Why else would you snip it?
Go play with your spaceships, write another pdf which is wrong, blatantly.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...